Not sure about you, but I value my eyes – glasses and all. Whether it’s
reading, appreciating a lovely view, watching TV or a movie…it’s all
good! I know there are a lot of people who go through life with impaired
vision – even blind – but I have to say that I hope I never have to
make this adjustment. So, yes, I’m pretty serious about eye protection.
Let’s start with what the regulations require, and then I’ll mention a
few other things to keep in mind as well.

I have a friend who used to be a lawyer specializing in personal
injuries – she represented the businesses or people who were being sued.
A lot of her work was preventative in nature – advising her clients on
how to avoid claims by eliminating (as much as possible) opportunities
for injuries.

Anti-reflective coating is also known as AR coating or anti-glare
coating. The coating improves vision, reduces eye strain and makes the
lenses appear invisible. These benefits are due to the ability of
anti-reflective coating to virtually eliminate reflections from the
front and back surfaces of your eyeglass lenses. This article discusses anti-reflective coating in general as well as the benefits and drawbacks.

We’ve had a number of questions about lifting and rigging
safety so this seems like a good time to try to tackle some of the major
issues. I should also say that this is not a comprehensive survey of the topic
– just an introduction covering some of the more important issues.

Boy – there are so many answers to this question, but the
best is “It depends.” What it depends on primarily is the design of the
electrical line – a high-tension power line is going to carry much more current
than will the feeder line to an office (or apartment) building, and that feeder
line will carry more juice than the line that runs to your home is going to
carry. So the best answer, again, is “It depends.” But more important is that
you have got to keep your electrical loads comfortably within the carrying
capacity of your electrical lines, whether that’s the line feeding your home,
your business, your shop, or whatever it is that you’re wiring up. In fact, you
really shouldn’t exceed about 80% of the rated capacity of any electrical line,
just to be safe. Also – and this is important – you should never try to push an
electrical line (or fuse box or breaker box) beyond its rated capacity.

Making the rounds in the news the past few months has been Ashley Furniture and its OSHA violations. OSHA has again cited Ashley Furniture Industries Inc. for
alleged safety violations at one of its Wisconsin factories, saying the
company failed to protect workers from moving machine parts.

Hello! We do a lot of grinding and welding, which can throw some sparks.
How long can a spark smolder? And are there any other fire safety tips
you can give us? Thanks!
Interesting question – and the answer’s a bit more complicated
than you might think. I was in the Navy for several years and we had to
set a Fire Watch whenever hot work was taking place; in addition we had
to keep a re-flash watch stationed after any fire had been put out, to
make sure it didn’t flare back up when we left. Having a fire on a
submarine is bad enough; even worse to have it come back. There were no
hard-and-fast rules as to how long to station the re-flash watch or how
long to keep the Fire Watch set after the hot work ended – normally we’d
let it go after about a half hour, but it depended on a couple of
factors.

Awhile back someone posted a question to this webpage about the
likelihood of a chemical attack by terrorists. Given recent events, it
seems like a good time to tackle this question, as well as to go into
how to keep yourself (and your co-workers) safe if there is such an
attack. What I’d like to do is, first, to give a little bit of
background information, then to discuss the threat of a chemical attack
and, finally, what you can do if one occurs.

June 1, 2016 is the deadline for employers to update alternative workplace labeling and hazard communication program as necessary, and provide additional employee training for newly identified physical or health hazards.

If your facility is generating more than 1000 Kg of hazardous waste or
more than 1 Kg of acutely hazardous waste, even if only in one month,
you must have a written contingency plan as described in 40 CFR Parts
270 and 264. These are federal requirements. Your state division of
environmental protection may be even stricter.

So you want (or need) to transport hazardous materials? Most people
would probably ask “why”; if you work with hazardous materials on a
regular basis you know why you’re transporting the materials – a better
question is “how do I do it safely without violating any regulations?” I
can go over some of the basics here, but if you’re transporting
hazardous materials then you really need to schedule yourself (or one of
your minions) for formal training on the subject...

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) RCRA regulation allows a
container that once held a non-acute hazardous waste to be considered
empty and not subject to hazardous waste regulation when all waste that
can be removed has been removed using common practices such as pouring,
pumping, and aspirating. But did you know the DOT has a conflicting regulation? Find out more in this article.

It seems as though every few years there’s another Ebola outbreak in
Africa that gets the world’s attention. These epidemics are very real
and they are tragedies for those who get sick, those who die, and their
families. They’re also a tragedy for the medical personnel who make what
is a genuinely heroic effort to care for their patients in what are
typically primitive conditions – and too many of whom get sick and die
as well. And they’re a tragedy for the governments that are so badly
stressed dealing with a huge public health crisis...

I ran across a safety blog article discussing a very interesting article and video produced by Mike Rowe entitled "Safety First or Just in the Top Three?"
I think the Mike Rowe brings up some interesting points. I am
posting a link to the video segment and also reprinting Rowe's article
in its entirety because it appears the article was removed from Rowe's
website at some point in the past. It looks like they updated the style
of Rowe's website and neglected to keep the old content...